IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MIDHUN MOHANAN T. – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48351 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's requests regarding summons. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observation on the authority's power. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant the petitioner a reasonable adjournment or alternative date for appearance pursuant to Exhibit P1 summons;
(ii) Issue a direction that the petitioner shall not be subjected to any coercive steps, including arrest or detention, during his appearance pursuant to Exhibit P1 summons;
(iii) Issue a direction that the statement of the petitioner, if recorded, shall be strictly voluntary and in accordance with law, without any threat, inducement or compulsion;
(iv) Issue any other writ, order, or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. What is under challenge in this writ petition is a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 . After carefully going through the records, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the relief sought for, as the authority concerned has the power under Section 108 of the Customs Act to issue a summons as evidenced by Ext.P1. I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the other rights of the petitioner.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.